Time for US to leave NATO, UN and the Mid

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/24/world/meast/iraq-unrest/index.html

What's happening in Iraq is just more evidence that non-interventionism is the best US policy. We don't need to get involved in Mideast affairs. There should be a US foreign policy plan to remove our military forces from the Mideast and end our dependency on oil from that region. There's been talk about ending the dependence, but not enough action.

The fact that our involvement in Syria has been greater than our government has told us is an example of the military/industrial complex out of control. We need a Commander in Chief who understands the concept tof non-interventionism, because if we keep getting in deeper in the Mideast, it could be the tipping point that collapses us financially. But aside from the financial disaster of Mideast involvement, it's none of our business how the people of this region settle their differences.

The US justifies it's meddling in the affairs of Mideast countries by hiding in obscurantism of UN and NATO actions. UN and NATO are useless organizations for which the US has no good use. America should be a trading nation, one with a military strong enough that no one chooses to challenge it -- we defend our borders and trade freely with all countries -- that's enough.

Going to war through Turkey?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/25/syria-fires-at-second-turkish-plane-deputy-prime-minister-says/

I have a feeling that the Samantha Powers wing of the Obama Progressives wants to engage Syria, overthrow Assad and pretend that democracy has won as another Islamist strong-arm group takes power. Liberal media still talks as if there's a group of freedom fighters struggling in Syria against the terrible Assad. No doubt Assad is bad, but no worse than the bad guys fighting against him for control of the Syrian government.

If Turkey goes to war with Syria, we can be assured the US is backing them through the additional cover of NATO.

Syria, Assad and US interventions

How long has the US operated covertly in Syria, or against Assad in an attempt to create another Arab Spring uprising? US media gives us the sanitized version that Assad is evil and the peaceful protesters are now fighting for liberty against all odds. It's understood that Assad is no great, benevolent leader, but the Islamist groups attempting to gain control are no better, and where in the mideast are there any great, benevolent leaders? Several reports show that most Syrians prefer the Assad government, but you won't see that reported much in the US.

Turkey is now proposing a buffer zone for refugees, but this will require help from other countries to provide firepower. I wonder who can help? Can it be NATO who operates without US leadership?

Western media is not telling the whole story. Behind the scenes, US intervention in mideast affairs expands and expands. We are likely using Turkey as a way to affect regime change in Syria, so that we can move further toward regime change in Iran. The US is dealing with dangerous Islamist groups it won't be able to manage after they've gained power. These lovers of "democracy" will be biting us in the ass soon enough. Although our economy is an important topic in 2012, our interventions in mideast affairs are just as important. As Obama gets us more deeply involved in these no-win, mideast situations, Republicans are not opposing the involvement and manipulations --  the neo-con crowd is calling for more war, as usual. It's left up to the New Republicans led by Rand Paul to build an opposition and call for transparency -- Western media sources are practically useless, although some reports are better than others.

Morning Joe 11/4/2011 -- If only we could deal with the debt problem

The Morning Joe crew today attempted to avoid Cain-bashing, but they couldn't help themselves. I suppose it's so offensive to the political class that Cain is surviving his blunders, history and media attacks, they are livid and unable to control their disdain. In the old days, Cain would be toast be now.

The guests this morning were Mark Halperin, Eugene Washington, David Gregory, Madeleine Albright and Gillian Tett from Financial Times. Mika and Joe had a recurring argument over raising tax rates on the rich vs eliminating loopholes. Scarborough revealed why the traditional, moderate Republicans are irrelevant. Republicans like Scarborough have valued compromise and political solutions over principled, philosophical positions based on sound economics and the virtues of limited government and non-intervention. Scarborough patiently explained to Mika why she is wrong about raising tax rates. Scarborough said that raising tax rates on millionaires might make her feel good but it won't raise anymore revenues, and that if loopholes are eliminated, then more revenue will flow into the government coffers. To Scarborough, this is the compromise which will generate a political solution, but to what end? The difference between Democrats and the New Republicans, as I understand it, is not how best to increase government revenues, but whether more money should be transferred from the private sector to government. Scarborough is simply looking for a way to "get something done" and he loses the argument, because Mika rightly asked "Why not do both?" Scarborough had no answer because he doesn't understand the fundamental issue which is spending is out of control and spending cuts are necessary, not schemes to transfer even more money from the private sector to government.

Given the premise that Scarborough conceded, Mika is correct -- if the goal is to find a compromise which will raise the most revenues, then eliminate loopholes and raise tax rates on the rich. Then, much more revenue will flow into government. If Republicans don't represent a true opposition to progressivism, then why change regimes in 2012 -- let's just go with the Democrats, raise revenues and make empty promises regarding spending cuts in the future when the economy is in better shape.

It was also reported that Obama is attending the G20 summit to provide his wisdom to Greece and Europe on how to handle the debt problem. As someone said, this is beyond ridiculous. Besides, debt is a symptom, not the fundamental problem. Obama made a statement that debt is the basic problem which the G20 faces, but this isn't true. The failure of statism is the biggest problem facing the G20. Welfare States are imploding, and unless they can embrace free markets and limited government, no new wealth will be created, and the decline of these States will continue. Gillian Gett said that the problem in Europe is not an economic problem but rather a political and cultural problem -- this is not totally correct either, unless she means that Europe needs to put political solutions and cultural ignorance aside to deal with the economic crisis which will make politics and culture meaningless when they collapse under a mountain of debt.

It's amazing that all these bright people on Morning Joe can't get to the fundamental problems and solutions -- they talk in circles regarding symptoms which have caused a downward spiraling loop for decades. They deal with symptoms and the problem gets worse, so they deal the new symptoms and the problem gets worse, on and on, with no one attacking the fundamental, underlying disease -- statism.

Albright praised Obama and NATO for the Libya operation, and the Morning Joe crew agreed, but this is madness. Obama and NATO went after one tyrant and stirred up a hornet's nest of tyrants, then left. An objective analysis would wonder if the cure is worse than the disease, and if the stated goal of protecting innocent Libyans will eventually lead to more deaths of innocents than Ghadafi would have caused if left in power. And the political class wonders why their manipulations aren't working in the Information Age.

NATO as world governance

Aside from the fact that China and Russia might have something to say about this, Obama's praise of NATO acting as one regarding intervention in nations where NATO desires certain outcomes is dangerous talk. At a time when America should be retiring as World Police, we're doubling down by creating an illusion of a benevolent coaltion of nations whose purpose is global governance.

This will certainly divert attention from our debt crisis and stalled economy, but it's exactly the wrong direction for foreign policy. It appears now that Syria comes up next on the global governance agenda, and this will bring Iran into the picture. We still don't know what will develope in Egypt and we've moved on to Libya and Syria. History tells us that this path is perilous, that it leads to large scale conflict. Neither the mideast nor northern Africa intend to follow NATO's lead into the future. All the talk about freedom and democracy is empty, just window dressing on State power designed to mask our real, fundamental problems.

If Americans fall for the temptation to feel good about our country because we're exercising power on the global stage, they'll regret it when our grand designs are thwarted by reality in a region that doesn't want our guidance, leaving us much poorer and more at risk of reprisals. When will we ever learn?